DOCSLIB.ORG

Implementation Guide to the DRAFT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2015 Implementation Guide to the DRAFT As Prescribed by The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grant Program Illinois Wildlife Action Plan 2015 Implementation Guide Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments IG 1 II. Foreword IG 2 III. Introduction IG 3 IV. Species in Greatest Conservation Need SGCN 8 a. Table 1. SummaryDRAFT of Illinois’ SGCN by taxonomic group SGCN 10 V. Conservation Opportunity Areas a. Description COA 11 b. What are Conservation Opportunity Areas COA 11 c. Status as of 2015 COA 12 d. Ways to accomplish work COA 13 e. Table 2. Summary of the 2015 status of individual COAs COA 16 f. Table 3. Importance of conditions for planning and implementation COA 17 g. Table 4. Satisfaction of conditions for planning and implementation COA 18 h. Figure 1. COAs currently recognized through Illinois Wildlife Action Plan COA 19 i. Figure 2. Factors that contribute or reduce success of management COA 20 j. Figure 3. Intersection of COAs with Campaign focus areas COA 21 k. References COA 22 VI. Campaign Sections Campaign 23 a. Farmland and Prairie i. Description F&P 23 ii. Goals and Current Status as of 2015 F&P 23 iii. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat F&P 27 iv. Focal Species F&P 30 v. Actions F&P 32 vi. Focus Areas F&P 38 vii. Management Resources F&P 40 viii. Performance Measures F&P 42 ix. References F&P 43 x. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Data F&P 45 xi. Figure 4. Amendment to Mason Co. Sands COA F&P 46 xii. Figure 5. Focus areas and sites in Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 47 xiii. Appendix 4. SGCN addressed by Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 48 b. Forest and Woodland i. Description F&W 52 ii. Goals F&W 52 iii. Status as of 2015 F&W 53 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat F&W 61 v. Focal Species F&W 62 vi. Actions F&W 64 vii. Focus Areas F&W 66 viii. Management Resources F&W 67 ix. Performance Measures F&W 68 x. Figure 6. Focus areas for the Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 69 xi. Appendix 5. SGCN addressed by Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 70 c. Green Cities i. DescriptionDRAFT GC 73 ii. Goals GC 75 iii. Status as of 2015 GC 76 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat GC 81 v. Focal Species and Associated Actions GC 84 vi. Focus Areas and Associated Actions GC 87 vii. Actions GC 98 viii. Management Resources GC 105 ix. Performance Measures GC 107 x. References GC 109 xi. Table 6. Definition of terms used in Green Cities Campaign GC 110 xii. Table 7. IL Metropolitan Statistical Area counties and population GC 111 xiii. Table 8. Population levels in Metropolitan Statistical Areas GC 111 xiv. Table 9. Percent change in total population in metropolitan areas GC 112 xv. Table 10. Total number of natural communities by metropolitan area GC 112 xvi. Table 11. Conservation Opportunity Areas in each metropolitan area GC 113 xvii. Table 12. Total IL Nature Preserve acreage in each metropolitan area GC 114 xviii. Table 13. Ranking of migratory bird species that utilize urban areas GC 115 xix. Table 14. 1928 pollinator study by Charles Robertson in Carlinville, IL GC 116 xx. Figure 7. Urban areas in IL based on population density GC 117 xxi. Figure 8. Metropolitan statistical areas in Illinois GC 118 xxii. Figure 9. Metropolitan/urban focus areas in Green Cities Campaign GC 119 xxiii. Figure 10. Conservation Opportunity Areas and metropolitan areas GC 120 xxiv. Figure 11. Illinois Natural Area Inventory sites by metropolitan area GC 121 xxv. Figure 12. T&E and IL Breading Bird Areas by metropolitan area GC 122 xxvi. Figure 13. Illinois cropland data from 2012 GC 123 xxvii. Appendix 6. SGCN addressed by Green Cities Campaign GC 124 d. Invasive Species i. Description Invasives 126 ii. Goals Invasives 126 iii. Status as of 2015 Invasives 127 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat Invasives 129 v. Focal Species Invasives 133 vi. Actions Invasives 134 vii. Management Resources Invasives 142 viii. Performance Measures Invasives 144 ix. Table 15. Early detection priority species Invasives 145 x. Table 16: SGCN threatened or stressed from Invasives Invasives 146 e. Lake Michigan and Coastal Area i. Description LM 149 ii. Guiding Principles and Goals LM 150 iii. Status as of 2015 LM 151 iv. StressesDRAFT and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat LM 160 v. Focal Species LM 162 vi. Actions LM 163 vii. Management Resources LM 174 viii. Performance Measures LM 176 ix. Figure 14. Campaign boundary and focus areas LM 177 x. Appendix 7. SGCN addressed by Lake Michigan Coastal Campaign LM 178 f. Streams i. Description Streams 181 ii. Goals Streams 181 iii. Status as of 2015 Streams 182 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat Streams 186 v. Focal Species Streams 188 vi. Focus Areas Streams 190 vii. Actions Streams 191 viii. Management Resources Streams 195 ix. Performance Measures Streams 196 x. References Streams 198 xi. Table 17. Activities in support of the Streams Campaign goals Streams 200 xii. Table 18. Focal species in nutrient management priority areas Streams 201 xiii. Figure 15. Streams Campaign focus areas Streams 202 xiv. Appendix 8. SGCN addressed by the Streams Campaign Streams 203 g. Wetlands i. Description Wetlands 211 ii. Goals Wetlands 212 iii. Status as of 2015 Wetlands 214 iv. Stresses and Threats to Wildlife and Habitat Wetlands 218 v. Focal Species Wetlands 220 vi. Focus Areas Wetlands 221 vii. Actions Wetlands 222 viii. Management Resources Wetlands 231 ix. Performance Measures Wetlands 232 x. References Wetlands 233 xi. Figure 16. Wetlands Campaign priority natural divisions Wetlands 236 xii. Figure 17. Wetlands Campaign priority areas and sites Wetlands 237 xiii. Appendix 9. SGCN addressed by the Wetlands Campaign Wetlands 238 xiv. Appendix 10. Wetlands Campaign priority tiers in Illinois. Wetlands 243 VII. Review and Revision Review 246 VIII. References References 247 IX. Tables a. Table 1. Summary of Illinois’ SGCN by taxonomic group SGCN 10 b. Table 2. Summary of the 2015 status of individual COAs COA 16 c. Table 3. ImportanceDRAFT of conditions for planning and implementation COA 17 d. Table 4. Satisfaction of conditions for planning and implementation COA 18 e. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Data F&P 45 f. Table 6. Definition of terms used in Green Cities Campaign GC 110 g. Table 7. IL Metropolitan Statistical Area counties and population GC 111 h. Table 8. Population levels in Metropolitan Statistical Areas GC 111 i. Table 9. Percent change in total population in metropolitan areas GC 112 j. Table 10. Total number of natural communities by metropolitan area GC 112 k. Table 11. Conservation Opportunity Areas in each metropolitan area GC 113 l. Table 12. Total IL Nature Preserve acreage in each metropolitan area GC 114 m. Table 13. Ranking of migratory bird species that utilize urban areas GC 115 n. Table 14. 1928 pollinator study by Charles Robertson in Carlinville, IL GC 116 o. Table 15. Early detection priority species Invasives 145 p. Table 16: SGCN threatened or stressed from Invasives Invasives 146 q. Table 17. Activities in support of the Streams Campaign goals Streams 200 r. Table 18. Focal species in nutrient management priority areas Streams 201 X. Figures a. Figure 1. COAs currently recognized through Illinois Wildlife Action Plan COA 19 b. Figure 2. Factors that contribute or reduce success of management COA 20 c. Figure 3. Intersection of COAs with Campaign focus areas COA 21 d. Figure 4. Amendment to Mason Co. Sands COA F&P 46 e. Figure 5. Focus areas and sites in Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 47 f. Figure 6. Focus areas for the Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 69 g. Figure 7. Urban areas in IL based on population density GC 117 h. Figure 8. Metropolitan statistical areas in Illinois GC 118 i. Figure 9. Metropolitan/urban focus areas in Green Cities Campaign GC 119 j. Figure 10. Conservation Opportunity Areas and metropolitan areas GC 120 k. Figure 11. Illinois Natural Area Inventory sites by metropolitan area GC 121 l. Figure 12. T&E and IL Breading Bird Areas by metropolitan area GC 122 m. Figure 13. Illinois cropland data from 2012 GC 123 n. Figure 14. Lake Michigan campaign boundary and focus areas LM 177 o. Figure 15. Streams Campaign focus areas Streams 202 p. Figure 16. Wetlands Campaign priority natural divisions Wetlands 236 q. Figure 17. Wetlands Campaign priority areas and sites Wetlands 237 XI. Appendixes a. Appendix 1. Species in Greatest Conservation Need in Illinois Appendix 1 253 b. Appendix 2. Watch list of vulnerable species Appendix 2 270 c. Appendix 3. Contributors to Illinois Wildlife Action Plan implementation and 2015 Implementation Guide development Appendix 3 281 d. Appendix 4. SGCN addressed by Farmland and Prairie Campaign F&P 48 e. Appendix 5. SGCN addressed by Forest and Woodland Campaign F&W 70 f. Appendix 6. SGCN addressed by Green Cities Campaign GC 124 g. AppendixDRAFT 7. SGCN addressed by Lake Michigan Coastal Campaign LM 178 h. Appendix 8. SGCN addressed by the Streams Campaign Streams 203 i. Appendix 9. SGCN addressed by the Wetlands Campaign Wetlands 238 j. Appendix 10. Wetlands Campaign priority tiers in Illinois. Wetlands 243 Acknowledgments Illinois’ Wildlife Action Plan has been implemented over the past ten years through the tremendous cooperation and collaboration among many agencies, organizations and individuals. This Implementation Guide is the result of conversations with partners who requested a revised format that would identify best management practices, step down actions to make them easier to implement, provide clear directions for implementation, clarify the role of IDNR, and be written in language everyone can understand.
Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices

    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices

    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
  • Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA a Newsletter for Plecopterologists

    Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA a Newsletter for Plecopterologists

    No. 10 1990/1991 Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA A Newsletter for Plecopterologists EDITORS: Richard W, Baumann Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 Peter Zwick Limnologische Flußstation Max-Planck-Institut für Limnologie, Postfach 260, D-6407, Schlitz, West Germany EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Bonnie Snow REPORT 3rd N orth A merican Stonefly S ymposium Boris Kondratieff hosted an enthusiastic group of plecopterologists in Fort Collins, Colorado during May 17-19, 1991. More than 30 papers and posters were presented and much fruitful discussion occurred. An enjoyable field trip to the Colorado Rockies took place on Sunday, May 19th, and the weather was excellent. Boris was such a good host that it was difficult to leave, but many participants traveled to Santa Fe, New Mexico to attend the annual meetings of the North American Benthological Society. Bill Stark gave us a way to remember this meeting by producing a T-shirt with a unique “Spirit Fly” design. ANNOUNCEMENT 11th International Stonefly Symposium Stan Szczytko has planned and organized an excellent symposium that will be held at the Tree Haven Biological Station, University of Wisconsin in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, USA. The registration cost of $300 includes lodging, meals, field trip and a T- Shirt. This is a real bargain so hopefully many colleagues and friends will come and participate in the symposium August 17-20, 1992. Stan has promised good weather and good friends even though he will not guarantee that stonefly adults will be collected during the field trip. Printed August 1992 1 OBITUARIES RODNEY L.
  • The Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Botanical Garden in Lublin As a Refuge of the Moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) Within the City

    The Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Botanical Garden in Lublin As a Refuge of the Moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) Within the City

    Acta Biologica 23/2016 | www.wnus.edu.pl/ab | DOI: 10.18276/ab.2016.23-02 | strony 15–34 The Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Botanical Garden in Lublin as a refuge of the moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) within the city Łukasz Dawidowicz,1 Halina Kucharczyk2 Department of Zoology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland 1 e-mail: [email protected] 2 e-mail: [email protected] Keywords biodiversity, urban fauna, faunistics, city, species composition, rare species, conservation Abstract In 2012 and 2013, 418 species of moths at total were recorded in the Botanical Garden of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. The list comprises 116 species of Noctuidae (26.4% of the Polish fauna), 116 species of Geometridae (28.4% of the Polish fauna) and 63 species of other Macrolepidoptera representatives (27.9% of the Polish fauna). The remaining 123 species were represented by Microlepidoptera. Nearly 10% of the species were associated with wetland habitats, what constitutes a surprisingly large proportion in such an urbanised area. Comparing the obtained data with previous studies concerning Polish urban fauna of Lepidoptera, the moths assemblages in the Botanical Garden were the most similar to the one from the Natolin Forest Reserve which protects the legacy of Mazovian forests. Several recorded moths appertain to locally and rarely encountered species, as Stegania cararia, Melanthia procellata, Pasiphila chloerata, Eupithecia haworthiata, Horisme corticata, Xylomoia graminea, Polychrysia moneta. In the light of the conducted studies, the Botanical Garden in Lublin stands out as quite high biodiversity and can be regarded as a refuge for moths within the urban limits of Lublin.
  • Research Report110

    Research Report110

    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
  • New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) with an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania

    New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) with an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania

    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 29 Number 3 - Fall 1996 Number 3 - Fall 1996 Article 2 October 1996 New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) With an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania E. C. Masteller Behrend College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Masteller, E. C. 1996. "New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) With an Annotated Checklist of the Species for Pennsylvania," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 29 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol29/iss3/2 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Masteller: New Records of Stoneflies (Plecoptera) With an Annotated Checklis 1996 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOlOGIST 107 NEW RECORDS OF STONEFLIES IPLECOPTERA} WITH AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE SPECIES FOR PENNSYLVANIA E.C. Masteller1 ABSTRACT Original collections now record 134 species in nine families and 42 gen­ era. Seventeen new state records include, Allocapnia wrayi, Alloperla cau­ data, Leuctra maria, Soyedina carolinensis, Tallaperla elisa, Perlesta decipi· ens, P. placida, Neoperla catharae, N. occipitalis, N. stewarti, Cult us decisus decisus, Isoperla francesca, 1. frisoni, 1. lata,1. nana, 1. slossonae, Malirekus hastatus. Five species are removed from the list ofspecies for Pennsylvania. Surdick and Kim (1976) originally recorded 90 species of stoneflies in nine families and 32 genera from Pennsylvania. Since that time, Stark et al.
  • General News

    General News

    Biocontrol News and Information 27(4), 63N–79N pestscience.com General News David Greathead hoods. Both broom and tagasaste pods can be a seasonally important food source for kererū (an As this issue went to press we received the sad news endemic pigeon, Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), par- of the untimely death of Dr David Greathead at the ticularly in regions where its native food plants have age of 74. declined. A previous petition for the release of G. oli- vacea into New Zealand was rejected by the New Besides being a dedicated and popular Director of Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in CABI’s International Institute of Biological Control 1998 on the grounds that there was insufficient (IIBC), David was the driving force behind the estab- information to assess the relative beneficial and lishment and development of Biocontrol News and harmful effects of the proposed introduction. Information. He was an active member of its Edito- rial Board, providing advice and ideas right up to his As part of the submission to ERMA, Landcare death. Research quantified the expected costs and benefits associated with the introduction of additional biolog- We plan that the next issue will carry a full obituary. ical control agents for broom1. Due to uncertainties Please contact us if you would be willing to con- regarding the costs, a risk-averse approach was tribute information: commentary, personal adopted by assuming a worse-case scenario where memories or anecdotes on the contribution that tagasaste was planted to its maximum potential David made. extent in New Zealand (10,000 ha), levels of non- target damage to tagasaste were similar to those on Contact: Matthew Cock & Rebecca Murphy C.
  • CHAPTER 4: EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)

    CHAPTER 4: EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)

    Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 CHAPTER 4 EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) EPHEMEROPTERA Draft June 17, 2009 Chapter 4 | EPHEMEROPTERA 45 Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA Mayflies 4 Mayfly larvae are found in a variety of locations including lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers, but they are most common and diverse in lotic habitats. They are common and abundant in stream riffles and pools, at lake margins and in some cases lake bottoms. All mayfly larvae are aquatic with terrestrial adults. In most mayfly species the adult only lives for 1-2 days. Consequently, the majority of a mayfly’s life is spent in the water as a larva. The adult lifespan is so short there is no need for the insect to feed and therefore the adult does not possess functional mouthparts. Mayflies are often an indicator of good water quality because most mayflies are relatively intolerant of pollution. Mayflies are also an important food source for fish. Ephemeroptera Morphology Most mayflies have three caudal filaments (tails) (Figure 4.1) although in some taxa the terminal filament (middle tail) is greatly reduced and there appear to be only two caudal filaments (only one genus actually lacks the terminal filament). Mayflies have gills on the dorsal surface of the abdomen (Figure 4.1), but the number and shape of these gills vary widely between taxa. All mayflies possess only one tarsal claw at the end of each leg (Figure 4.1). Characters such as gill shape, gill position, and tarsal claw shape are used to separate different mayfly families.
  • The Taxonomy, Larva and Ecology of Agrotis Buchholzi (Noctuidae) with a New Sibling Species from North Carolina

    The Taxonomy, Larva and Ecology of Agrotis Buchholzi (Noctuidae) with a New Sibling Species from North Carolina

    JOURNAL OF LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Volume 58 2004 Number 2 JOlt rnal of the Lepidopterists' Society 51> (2 ), 2004, 0.5-74 THE TAXONOMY, LARVA AND ECOLOGY OF AGROTIS BUCHHOLZI (NOCTUIDAE) WITH A NEW SIBLING SPECIES FROM NORTH CAROLINA D ALE F. SCHWEITZER NalureServe & The Nature Conselvency, 1761 Main Street, POJi Norris, New Jersey 08349, USA AND TIMOTHY L. MCCABE New York State Museum, Albany, New York 12230, USA ABSTRACT. Agrotis huchholz.i is one of four Lepidoptera species believed to be endemic to the New Jersey Pine Barrens. It occurs primarily in recently burned or exceptionally xelic or sterile areas where its sole hl1val foodplant, Pyxidanthera barbu/ata (Diapensiaceae), occurs in open­ ings in the shrub layer. Adults can be quite common locally. There are two broods approximately two months apart with the first staliing about late May. Hibernation is as prepupal larvae in the sand. The la,va is similar to that of other species of Agrotis. Adults are very active and feed hut their natural f()od sourees are not known. A sibling species, Agrotis carolina, new species, is closely associated with P. barbu/ata in south­ eastern North Carolina. Its range resembles that 0[' another ende mic, Hemipachnobia subporphyrea. The combined ranges of thcse two Agro­ tis an, veIl similar to those of an unnamed C"clophora (Geometridae) and Spartiniphaga carterae Sehweitzer (Noduidae) and their habitats commonly overlap in both states. Fire is a crucial factor in forming and maintaining habitat f,)r all of these species. A buchho/zi may become imperiled hecause of a decline of wildfires.
  • Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA

    Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA

    Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Taxonomic Paper Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA Thomas P. Simon†, Charles C. Morris‡, Joseph R. Robb§, William McCoy | † Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 46403, United States of America ‡ US National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Porter, IN 47468, United States of America § US Fish and Wildlife Service, Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge, Madison, IN 47250, United States of America | US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Oakland City, IN 47660, United States of America Corresponding author: Thomas P. Simon ([email protected]) Academic editor: Benjamin Price Received: 08 Dec 2014 | Accepted: 09 Jan 2015 | Published: 12 Jan 2015 Citation: Simon T, Morris C, Robb J, McCoy W (2015) Biological Diversity, Ecological Health and Condition of Aquatic Assemblages at National Wildlife Refuges in Southern Indiana, USA. Biodiversity Data Journal 3: e4300. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e4300 Abstract The National Wildlife Refuge system is a vital resource for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and biological integrity in the United States. Surveys were conducted to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of fish, macroinvertebrate, and crayfish populations in two watersheds that encompass three refuges in southern Indiana. The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge had the highest number of aquatic species with 355 macroinvertebrate taxa, six crayfish species, and 82 fish species, while the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge had 163 macroinvertebrate taxa, seven crayfish species, and 37 fish species. The Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge had the lowest diversity of macroinvertebrates with 96 taxa and six crayfish species, while possessing the second highest fish species richness with 51 species.
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018

    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018 Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) photo by Clifton Avery Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina 2018 Compiled by Judith Ratcliffe, Zoologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published periodically, generally every two years.
  • A New Species of Agrotis Ochs. (Noctuidae) from Sable Island, Nova Scotia

    A New Species of Agrotis Ochs. (Noctuidae) from Sable Island, Nova Scotia

    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 37(1),1983,14-17 A NEW SPECIES OF AGROTIS OCHS. (NOCTUIDAE) FROM SABLE ISLAND, NOVA SCOTIA KENNETH NEILl Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 4}1 ABSTRACT. A new species of Agrotis Ochs. from Sable Island, Nova Scotia is figured and described, Recent biological surveys of Sable Island, Nova Scotia by the staff of the Nova Scotia Museum have added much to the local knowledge of the Lepidoptera of the island. One of the more interesting captures taken during these studies was a small series of pale Agrotis Ochs. resembling Agrotis volubilis Harv. and Agrotis stigmosa Morr. (for­ merly Agrotis volubilis f. stigmosa Morr.). Subsequent investigation of these specimens plus additional material collected by the staff of the Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, during the summer of 1967 showed that they represented an undescribed species with dis­ tinguishing characters in the female genitalia. Agrotis volubilis occurs from Newfoundland (Morris, 1980) and Nova Scotia (Ferguson, 1954) south to North Carolina, west to the Pacific (Forbes, 1954). Agrotis stigmosa occurs from Massachusetts west to North Dakota (Ahmandi, 1979). The early stages and host plants of A. stigmosa are unknown. The larva of A. volubilis has been reared from Achillea millefolium L. (McCabe, 1981). Agrotis arenarius, new species Description. Upperside of forewing overall much lighter and with lines and mark­ ings less distinct than in volubilis and stigmosa. Ground of forewing light sandy brown. Costal area slightly darker with some light-grey scaling along R and Cu. A dark "W" -shaped patch present in terminal area opposite cell.
  • The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation

    The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation

    M DC, — _ CO ^. E CO iliSNrNVINOSHilWS' S3ldVyan~LIBRARlES*"SMITHS0N!AN~lNSTITUTl0N N' oCO z to Z (/>*Z COZ ^RIES SMITHSONIAN_INSTITUTlON NOIiniIiSNI_NVINOSHllWS S3ldVaan_L: iiiSNi'^NviNOSHiiNS S3iavyan libraries Smithsonian institution N( — > Z r- 2 r" Z 2to LI ^R I ES^'SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTlON'"NOIini!iSNI~NVINOSHilVMS' S3 I b VM 8 11 w </» z z z n g ^^ liiiSNi NviNOSHims S3iyvyan libraries Smithsonian institution N' 2><^ =: to =: t/J t/i </> Z _J Z -I ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIiniliSNI NVINOSHilWS SSIdVyan L — — </> — to >'. ± CO uiiSNi NViNosHiiws S3iyvaan libraries Smithsonian institution n CO <fi Z "ZL ~,f. 2 .V ^ oCO 0r Vo^^c>/ - -^^r- - 2 ^ > ^^^^— i ^ > CO z to * z to * z ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNl NVINOSHllWS S3iaVdan L to 2 ^ '^ ^ z "^ O v.- - NiOmst^liS^> Q Z * -J Z I ID DAD I re CH^ITUCnMIAM IMOTtTIITinM / c. — t" — (/) \ Z fj. Nl NVINOSHIIINS S3 I M Vd I 8 H L B R AR I ES, SMITHSONlAN~INSTITUTION NOIlfl :S^SMITHS0NIAN_ INSTITUTION N0liniliSNI__NIVIN0SHillMs'^S3 I 8 VM 8 nf LI B R, ^Jl"!NVINOSHimS^S3iavyan"'LIBRARIES^SMITHS0NIAN~'lNSTITUTI0N^NOIin L '~^' ^ [I ^ d 2 OJ .^ . ° /<SS^ CD /<dSi^ 2 .^^^. ro /l^2l^!^ 2 /<^ > ^'^^ ^ ..... ^ - m x^^osvAVix ^' m S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION — NOIlfliliSNrNVINOSHimS^SS iyvyan~LIBR/ S "^ ^ ^ c/> z 2 O _ Xto Iz JI_NVIN0SH1I1/MS^S3 I a Vd a n^LI B RAR I ES'^SMITHSONIAN JNSTITUTION "^NOlin Z -I 2 _j 2 _j S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNI NVINOSHilWS S3iyVaan LI BR/ 2: r- — 2 r- z NVINOSHiltNS ^1 S3 I MVy I 8 n~L B R AR I Es'^SMITHSONIAN'iNSTITUTIOn'^ NOlin ^^^>^ CO z w • z i ^^ > ^ s smithsonian_institution NoiiniiiSNi to NviNosHiiws'^ss I dVH a n^Li br; <n / .* -5^ \^A DO « ^\t PUBLISHED BI-MONTHLY ENTOMOLOGIST'S RECORD AND Journal of Variation Edited by P.A.